A duck and a pigeon walk into a bar. They both want drinks after a long day working the streets only to discover that the bar has no liquid left due to unspecified issues with a delivery. Desperate to fix the situation, the duck waddles over to the stressed out manager and pulls out a wad of cash. He and the manager then ponder over the best way to use the cash in order to increase the presence of drinks at the bar. Meanwhile, the pigeon struts over to the psychologist’s office where he learns how to carry his stress in a healthier manner than resorting to drinks. He then flies back over to the bar to pass his newfound coping mechanisms to the duck and the bar manager. The manager, who was really just overwhelmed about the stresses of being a first-time business owner, than uses the coping mechanism and the cash in conjunction with each other to establish his business and make sure there was never a drink shortage ever again.
Okay, so yeah, my story could probably use some work. Nevertheless, let’s see what we can glean from this wonderful piece of literature. In the end, the original problem of the lack of drinks was solved. How it was solved came from a two-pronged approach: one focused on money and one focused a broader issue. It is important to ask oneself if you believe the problem could have been solved by one or the other or if both were necessary.
In my opinion, for the longest lasting success, both were necessary. Now I promise this isn’t completely random. Concerning economic policy, growth has most traditionally been emphasized under the logic that if there is general ‘growth,’ then other issues such as poverty will be solved. As time went on, different theories were developed on how to achieve growth versus or in conjunction with solving other social problems. Relating back to the story, let’s say that the duck with the money represents economic policy based on the idea of general economic growth while the pigeon and the psychologist represents someone focused more specifically on the social issue. I believe that a focus on economic growth and a focus on social issues like poverty alleviation is not mutually exclusive but rather go hand-in-hand. In my rudimentary understanding of the various forms of economic policies employed after WWII, these policies seem to recognize that idea which is showcased in their philosophy of the role of the government. Now in my personal opinion, I believe that if one is to focus first on the social issues, economic growth will inevitably occur. In contrast, a focus purely on economic growth does not necessarily lead to the alleviation of social issues (This is partly exemplified by the fact our standard for economic growth, GDP, doesn’t even account for the distribution of that wealth), yet economic growth will always be held back in the end by those social issues.
This was interesting, to say the least, but I can see where you're coming from. While I support solving social issues, and I do believe the economic growth and prosperity will follow, I wonder how we can actually get these social movements off the ground. Volunteer work can only go so far (it hasn't fixed anything yet, though it has helped). Money, unfortunately, has to be spent somewhere to get people to help others. Not to mention, there are historical and cultural issues embedded in society that make some social problems next to impossible to solve. I'm sure you don't have an idea of a system to overcome this issue (none of us are economists...) but I was wondering what your thoughts were on this idea of an initial economic barrier.
ReplyDeleteI think your absolutely correct about volunteer work only going to far and the overwhelming amount of historical and cultural barriers to solving social issues. I think, in essence, it would involve a cultural shift, however, it is a cultural shift for which we already have the precedent for. Culture is a compilation of a diverse array of values, rules, beliefs etc. In fact so diverse that you can justify almost any general action by it. For an easy example look at the women's movement. Because of cultural norms, women have been historically discriminated against, yet due to cultural norms concerning equality and social justice, the feminist movement arose. I think we are facing the same situation on the economic front. We just need that lever to create a bigger cultural shift when looking at solving social issues.
DeleteYour anecdote was quite intriguing, providing an easily digestible take on your argument. I think a lot of what you said makes sense, but I'm still a little hesitant on the idea that working on the alleviation of social issues will "inevitably" lead to economic growth? I don't necessarily doubt it, but how so?
ReplyDeleteI read an article for my FYS seminar recently that mentioned an academic who had calculated out that the empowerment of women on the African continent would lead to billions (I forget the exact stat) of dollars increase in the economy. In my (admittedly plebeian) understanding of economics, I can't see how any country could have reached their limits of economic growth if they are not engaging every sector of their society, but in order to do that, one has the alleviate the barriers. Now, the specifics on what this would look like should definitely be delegated to the experts.
Delete